AMERICAN INT'L: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK-----------------------------------------------------------Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reportsthat a St. Clair County class action suit filed two years ago overcar insurance that class members claimed was "worthless" may beover shortly.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien gave preliminaryapproval on Feb. 10 to two sub-classes of car insurance policyholders in a case led by Lesley Schaeperkoetter.

In the settlement, Ms. Schaeperkoetter would receive $2,000 asclass representative.

The class attorneys Robert Schmieder II, Bradley Lakin and RobertEvola of Wood River would receive $103,000 in fees.

Members of the two classes have until May 2 to opt out of thesettlement with American International South Insurance Company.

A fairness hearing is set for June 2 at 10:30 a.m.

Ms. Schaeperkoetter sued on her own behalf and that of others whobought auto insurance for $15 a month.

The case was taken to federal court shortly after its August 2009filing and was later remanded.

Status hearings in the suit were repeatedly pushed off until theFeb. 10 hearing.

Under the proposed settlement, two sub-classes are created.

One consists of Illinois purchasers of the policy. That classranges from Illinois policy holders who held the insurance fromJan. 1, 2004 to Feb. 10, 2011.

The other is made up of those who bought the insurance and whoreside in Missouri. The Missouri class time frame is from Jan. 1,2006 to Feb. 10, 2011.

Under the settlement, class members would be entitled to 100percent of the discrete premium paid to American InternationalSouth.

The company does not admit liability.

The number of the class members is not set out in the proposedsettlement documents nor is a lump settlement sum.

LeChien took the case over from now-retired St. Clair CountyCircuit Judge Michael O'Malley.

Stephan Rovak and Justine Margolis represent the insurancecompany.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-430.

BURGER KING: Has Until April 1 to File Summary Judgment Motion--------------------------------------------------------------Burger King Holdings Inc.'s subsidiaries have until April 1, 2011,to file a motion for summary judgment in a consolidated classaction complaint filed by franchisees, according to the Company'sMarch 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the transition period from July 1, 2010 toDecember 31, 2010.

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. and several individualfranchisees filed these class action lawsuits -- NationalFranchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation, No. 09-CV-23435(U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) andFamily Dining, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, No. 10-CV-21964(U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) -- onNovember 10, 2009, and June 15, 2010, respectively, claiming torepresent Burger King franchisees. The lawsuits seek a judicialdeclaration that the franchise agreements between BKC and itsfranchisees do not obligate the franchisees to comply with maximumprice points set by BKC for products on the BK Value Menu sold bythe franchisees, specifically the 1/4 lb. Double Cheeseburger andthe Buck Double. The Family Dining plaintiffs also seek monetarydamages for financial loss incurred by franchisees who wererequired to sell those products for no more than $1.00. In May2010, the court entered an order in the National FranchiseeAssociation case granting in part BKC's motion to dismiss. Thecourt held that BKC had the authority under its franchiseagreements to set maximum prices but that, for purposes of amotion to dismiss, the NFA had asserted a "plausible" claim thatBKC's decision may not have been made in good faith. Both caseswere consolidated into a single consolidated class actioncomplaint which BKC moved to dismiss on September 22, 2010. OnNovember 19, 2010, the court issued an order granting BKC's motionto dismiss on all claims in the consolidated complaint withprejudice. On December 14, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motionasking the court to reconsider its decision, and on December 17,2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals. On February 2, 2011, the court permitted theplaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Discovery is nowcomplete, and the court has instructed BKC to file a motion forsummary judgment by April 1, 2011.

BURGER KING: Enters Into Settlement of Florida & Delaware Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Burger King Holdings Inc. has entered into a settlement withplaintiffs of class action lawsuits pending in Florida andDelaware in connection with its merger with Blue Acquisition SubInc., according to the Company's March 23, 2011, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thetransition period from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010.

On September 3, 2010, four purported class action complaints werefiled in the Circuit Court for the County of Miami-Dade, Florida,captioned Darcy Newman v. Burger King Holdings, Inc. et. al., CaseNo. 10-48422CA30, Belle Cohen v. David A. Brandon, et. al., CaseNo. 10-48395CA32, Melissa Nemeth v. Burger King Holdings, Inc. et.al., Case No. 10-48424CA05 and Vijayalakshmi Venkataraman v. JohnW. Chidsey, et. al., Case No. 10-48402CA13, by purportedshareholders of the Company, in connection with the tender offerand the Merger. Each of the four complaints names as defendantsthe Company, each member of the Company's board of directors and3G Capital. The suits generally allege that the IndividualDefendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company'sshareholders in connection with the proposed sale of the Companyand that 3G Capital and the Company aided and abetted thepurported breaches of fiduciary duties.

On September 8, 2010, another putative shareholder class actionsuit captioned Roberto S. Queiroz v. Burger King Holdings, Inc.,et al., Case No. 5808-VCP was filed in the Delaware Court ofChancery against the Individual Defendants, the Company, 3G, 3GCapital, Blue Acquisition Holding Corporation and Blue AcquisitionSub, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the IndividualDefendants breached their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholdervalue by entering into the proposed transaction via an unfairprocess and at an unfair price, and that the merger agreementcontains provisions that unreasonably dissuade potential suitorsfrom making competing offers. On September 27, 2010, anotherputative shareholder class action suit captioned RobertDebardelaben v. Burger King Holdings, Inc., et al, Court ofChancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 5850-UA was filed inthe Delaware Court of Chancery against the Individual Defendants.Like the first Delaware Action, the Debardelaben complaint assertsthat the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties inconnection with the tender offer, and that the Company and 3GCapital aided and abetted that breach. This action also seeks bothmonetary and injunctive relief. On September 29, 2010, theDelaware court entered an order consolidating the Debardelaben andQueiroz actions.

On October 19, 2010, the Company completed a merger with BlueAcquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Burger King Worldwide Holdings, Inc., formerly knownas Blue Acquisition Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporationand the Parent. Parent is wholly-owned by 3G Special SituationsFund II, L.P., which is an affiliate of 3G Capital Partners, Ltd.,an investment firm based in New York. In accordance with the termsof the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub completed its acquisition of100% of the Company's equity and merged with and into the Company,with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation. TheCompany became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and its commonstock ceased to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange afterclose of market on October 19, 2010. In connection with the Mergerand as part of the financing for the consideration paid in theMerger, on October 19, 2010, (i) BKC, as borrower, entered into aCredit Agreement dated as of October 19, 2010 with JPMorgan ChaseBank, N.A., as administrative agent, Barclays Capital, assyndication agent, and the lenders party thereto from time totime, and (ii) Merger Sub issued and BKC assumed $800.0 million of9-7/8% Senior Notes due 2018.

On December 30, 2010, a proposed settlement was reached with theplaintiffs in the Florida Actions and Delaware Actions. Theprincipal terms of the proposed settlement include additionaldisclosures about the Merger that were provided to Burger Kingshareholders in the Company's amended schedule 14D-9, dismissal ofthe Florida and Delaware actions, mutual releases and the paymentof up to $1 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs'counsel.

On March 16, 2011, the Florida court preliminarily approved theproposed settlement and ordered that the class be provided withnotice of the proposed settlement.

BURGER KING: Continues to Defend "Accessibility" Suit in Calif.---------------------------------------------------------------Burger King Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against aclass action lawsuit in California alleging violations ofaccessibility requirements under federal and state law, accordingto the Company's March 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period fromJuly 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010.

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit -- Castenada v.Burger King Corp. and Burger King Corporation., No. CV08-4262(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) --was filed against the Company in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California. The complaint allegedthat all 96 Burger King restaurants in California leased by theCompany and operated by franchisees violate accessibilityrequirements under federal and state law. In September 2009, thecourt issued a decision on the plaintiffs' motion for classcertification. In its decision, the court limited the class actionto the 10 restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with aseparate class of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and 10separate trials. In March 2010, the Company agreed to settle thelawsuit with respect to the 10 restaurants and, in July 2010, thecourt gave final approval to the settlement. In February 2011, aclass action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v. Burger KingCorporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California) was filed with respect to the other 86restaurants. The Company intends to vigorously defend against allclaims in the lawsuit, but the Company is unable to predict theultimate outcome of this litigation.

CABELL HUNTINGTON: Law Firm to File Malpractice Class Action------------------------------------------------------------WSAZ reports that a Charleston law firm issued a "notice of claim"to Cabell Huntington Hospital, as well as Radiology Inc.

The notice was issued on March 22 saying the law firm -- Hill,Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLLC -- intends to file a classaction complaint on behalf of patients who it claims were exposedto excessive amounts of radiation during CT angiography of thehead and neck with and without contrast.

The "notice of claim" is the first step taken under WestVirginia's medical malpractice laws. Along with the notice, a"screening certificate of merit" was sent to Cabell HuntingtonHospital and Radiology Inc.

The notice was sent on behalf of clients of Hill, Peterson,Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLLC along with clients of the law firmPowell and Majestro, PLLC.

The complaint involves patients who underwent CT scans at CabellHuntington Hospital between Oct. 9, 2009 and Nov. 23, 2010.Affected patients have claimed hair loss, fatigue and burningsensations in the and head area.

Cabell Huntington Hospital released a statement stating that staffhas contacted every patient affected by the excessive radiation byphone and mail. According to the statement, the manufacturer ofthe hospital's CT angiography equipment has been contacted.

Cabell Huntington Hospital and Radiology Inc. now have 30 days torespond, request mediation or request a more definite statement ofclaims before a law suit can be filed.

CANADIAN RECORD LABELS: Jazz Trumpeter's Son Challenges Accord--------------------------------------------------------------Drew Hasselback, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that PaulBaker, the son of deceased jazz trumpeter Chet Baker, is unhappywith a proposed $45 million settlement in a royalties class-actionlawsuit filed against Canadian record labels.

Mr. Baker wrote Judge George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Courtof Justice last month to voice his opinion on the settlement,which was supposed to be resolved earlier this month. The arrivalof Mr. Baker's letter caused Judge Strathy to adjourn the approvalhearing until March 28. The delay is supposed to give Mr. Bakertime to decide whether he should make formal submissions in thecase.

The Chesney "Chet" Baker Estate is the lead plaintiff in an actionbrought against four record labels, Sony Music EntertainmentCanada, EMI Music Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner MusicCanada. Earlier this year, the record labels agreed to pay theclass $45-million to settle the matter.

Mr. Baker's beef with the settlement has less to do with theamount of the damages than it does with process. His father diedin 1988 and Mr. Baker claims a one-eighth interest in the estate.He seems puzzled how the estate managed to become representativeplaintiff without his say so.

Howard Knopf, a lawyer in Ottawa who publishes the ExcessCopyright blog, has crunched the numbers and calculated that theproposed settlement values the infringement damages at somethingless than $135 per tune. This, Mr. Knopf writes, is less than thenormal statutory damages of $500 per song, though a court doeshave discretion to grant lower awards in limited circumstances.

CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Records $200,000 as Settlement of Class Suits-----------------------------------------------------------------Capital Financial Holdings, Inc., recorded $200,000 in its booksin anticipation of a settlement of class action lawsuits that itis currently defending, according to the Company's March 23, 2011,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is defending two recently instituted proceedingsseeking certification as class actions which name the Company asone of a number of defendants and allege various securities orconduct violations, one with respect to private placements ofMedical Capital Corporation and related issuer entities for whichthe broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $100 million ofdebt securities and the other with regard to private placements ofProvident Royalties, LLC and related issuer entities for which thebroker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $60 million of debtsecurities. The Company intends to vigorously contest theallegations of the various proceedings and believes that there aremultiple meritorious legal and fact based defenses in thesematters. Such cases are subject to many uncertainties, and theiroutcome is often difficult to predict, including the impact onoperations or on the financial statements, particularly in theearlier stages of a case. The Company makes provisions for casesbrought against it when, in the opinion of management afterseeking legal advice, it is probable that a liability exists, andthe amount can be reasonably estimated. The current proceedingsare subject to uncertainties and as such, the Company is unable toestimate the possible loss or a range of loss that may result fromeach individual matter. There is a contemplated settlementregarding both Medical Capital Corporation and ProvidentRoyalties, LLC, by which the Company would contribute monies to asettlement fund. The contemplated settlement, in the amount of$200,000, was recorded in the books of the company as a liability,though the settlement is subject to approval by a number ofentities, and there is no assurance that the settlement will becompleted.

CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Settles Class Action Over Methane Gas Leak------------------------------------------------------------Matthew Schulz, Dimity Barber and John Masanauskas, writing forThe Herald Sun, report that the council forced into payingmillions in compensation for a gas fiasco says the deal is a "goodoutcome".

Residents will share AU$17.25 million compo for the Cranbourne gasleak fiasco after compensation lawyers Slater & Gordon took atleast AU$6 million in fees.

The Cranbourne Leader reports the settlement is set to beAU$23.5 million, including AU$13.5 million from Casey Councilcoffers and AU$10 million to be paid by the EPA.

Residents will share AU$17.25 million after a AU$6 million paymentfor the court costs and fees for law firm Slater and Gordon.

The lawyers may earn even more for the case, with their fees onlycovering their work until the end of February.

The company may earn another AU$250,000 for further work it doesfor "exceptional circumstances".

That leaves the 771 Brookland Greens households in the classaction to share AU$17.25 million -- an average of AU$22,373 each.

The biggest payout of AU$132,000 will be for the worst-affectedhouseholds closest to the dump.

The lowest payout will be just over AU$7,000.

Lawyers for the residents told the Supreme Court a deal had beenreached with the EPA and City of Casey in the Supreme Court onMarch 25.

Slater & Gordon confirmed details of the settlement in theirMelbourne offices on March 25.

The settlement is currently being tabled in court.

City of Casey mayor Shar Balmes on March 25 described thesettlement as "a good outcome for all the parties concerned".

In a written statement, Cr Balmes said residents could "now get onwith their lives".

"I am extremely pleased that a settlement has been achieved aheadof what would have been a costly and distracting court case foreveryone," Cr Balmes said.

While the council told Radio 3AW ruled out levying extra chargeson residents to pay for its AU$13.5 million liability, the mayorsaid it planned to pursue others in the courts and was confidentof recouping "much of Council's outlay".

Cr Balmes said the council and the EPA would pursue recoveryclaims against nine other defendants.

"Council has always maintained that a range of parties, includinga number of its consultants and managers, contributed to themethane issues at the landfill," she said.

Those defendants were mostly technical experts who gave advice ormanaged the landfill on behalf of the council, she said.

The council was also pursuing an indemnity claim against itsinsurer, the Municipal Association of Victoria.

Hundreds of families were evacuated from the area in 2008 aftermethane gas leaks from a nearby landfill site.

Slater & Gordon launched proceedings against the City of Casey andthe Environment Protection Authority on behalf of hundreds ofresidents and property owners.

Since then, another 10 defendants, mainly contractors, have beenbrought in by the council and other parties.

The latest addition is the City of Frankston, brought in by theMetropolitan Waste Management Group.

Mediation failed to resolve the case last year and a trial was setfor July before the March 25 settlement.

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: PPO Settlement Claim Under Advisement-----------------------------------------------------------Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reportsthat Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge said he wasn'tsure if a $500,000 disputed class action settlement claim was amatter of "form over substance" during a hearing on March 24.

But, he said he was going to give both plaintiff's attorney RobertSchmieder II and Omar Odland, the attorney representing CincinnatiInsurance and Cincinnati Casualty companies, more time to findout.

Judge Mudge kept a plea by class member Illinois Bone and JointInstitute under advisement as the parties said they would takemore time to discover whether or not spreadsheets submitted byIBJI were adequate claims documentation that would forceCincinnati to pay out 90% of $500,000 under terms of a 2005 classaction settlement.

Cincinnati settled with a class of Illinois health care providersincluding IBJI two years ago.

The class led by chiropractor Frank Bemis alleged that theinsurance company took Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)discounts it was not entitled to from workers' compensationtreatment claims.

The suit is one of a number filed in the early part of the lastdecade by Mr. Schmieder II's firm, now LakinChapman LLC of WoodRiver, and the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss.

The pair filed a number of the PPO class actions in both Madisonand St. Clair counties.

The partnership broke up in 2007.

The Bemis-Cincinnati settlement was worth up to $3.5 million.

Mr. Bemis got $5,000 as class representative.

Mr. Schmieder II and his team took home $700,000 in fees.

Following the 2009 settlement, class members had until Nov. 23,2010 to submit their claims and supporting documents.

IBJI submitted claims worth $485,000 on Nov. 23, 2009.

However, Cincinnati paid out $52,000 of $57,000 that the companyruled to have been properly supported.

It denied the rest of the IBJI claim.

IBJI then submitted a new claim and documents with what it claimswere additional discounted treatment claims on March 24, 2010.

Cincinnati denied that claim as untimely and lacking supportingdocuments.

The dispute came to Judge Mudge last December.

Mr. Schmieder II argued that the documents listed on the claimforms were examples and not the only documents that Cincinnaticould consider in determining whether or not the claim should bepaid under the settlement.

Mr. Schmieder II reiterated those arguments to Mudge on March 24.

He argued it was the company's burden to match up information fromthe IBJI spreadsheets to their internal documents.

"It may be cumbersome and they may not like it but they have thedata," Mr. Schmieder II said.

Mr. Odland countered that the March 24, 2010 spreadsheets shouldnot factor in to Judge Mudge's decision about the claim's paymentbecause they had come in five months past the end of the claimsperiod.

"They just sat on it, Judge," Mr. Odland said.

Mr. Odland also pointed out what Schmieder II agreed was problemswith IBJI's math in the Nov. 23, 2009 and March 24, 2010spreadsheets.

One patient, for example, appeared more than 50 times, Mr. Odlandsaid. However, the claims weren't related to workers'compensation.

Mr. Odland told Judge Mudge that it appeared IBJI was trying toclaim recompense for claims that weren't covered by thesettlement.

Judge Mudge expressed his own doubts about Mr. Schmieder II'sposition, particularly on the time-issue of the March 24, 2010documents.

"Well, I'm leaning Cincinnati's way on that one," the judge saidof the deadline issue.

Judge Mudge did not allow Peter Schmidt of Toledo, Ohio, arepresentative for IBJI, to testify at the March 24 hearing.

Mr. Odland raised the point early in the hearing that he had nothad the opportunity to depose Mr. Schmidt and could not waive hisclients' right to do so.

Following arguments, Judge Mudge took the issue back underadvisement.

He gave the parties 60 days to conduct additional discovery and totake depositions including Mr. Schmidt's if needed.

California Civil code Section 1747.08 generally states that when amerchant is engaged in a retail transaction with a customer, themerchant may neither (1) request personal identificationinformation from a customer paying for goods with a credit card,and then record that personal identification information upon thecredit card transaction or otherwise; nor (2) require as acondition of payment the cardholder to provide the customer'spersonal identification information which the retailer causes tobe written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transactionor otherwise.

Defendant operates retail stores under the name Crate & Barrelthroughout the United States, including California.

Plaintiff is a resident of California, and entered into a retailtransaction with defendant at one of defendant's Californiastores.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Euromarket Designs, onMarch 22, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District ofCalifornia, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01368 to theproceeding.

HALLIBURTON CO: Archdiocese Fund Involved in Class Action---------------------------------------------------------Annysa Johnson, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports thatwhile bankruptcy has stalled the pending court cases against theArchdiocese of Milwaukee over its handling of clergy sex abusecases, its biggest benefactor is waging its own battle -- nowbefore the U.S. Supreme Court -- over allegedly fraudulentsecurities practices by energy conglomerate Halliburton Co.

The Erica P. John Fund, known until 2009 as the Archdiocese ofMilwaukee Supporting Fund, is the lead plaintiff in an 8-year-oldclass-action lawsuit alleging that Halliburton made falsestatements about its business between 1999 and 2001, causinginvestors to lose money when it corrected those statements and itsstock price declined.

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether plaintiffs shouldhave to prove "loss causation" -- in this case whetherHalliburton's corrected statements caused the price drop andsubsequent losses -- in order to be certified as a class action.

Such a requirement, said John Fund attorney Carl Goldfarb, wouldplace an undue burden on plaintiffs and effectively keep manysecurities fraud cases out of court.

"It's a very significant hurdle, very difficult to show at thatearly state without litigation, without discovery," Mr. Goldfarbsaid.

"It will keep cases from getting certified as class actions. And,because it's prohibitively expensive to pursue these casesindividually, it will mean many plaintiffs will find thecourthouse doors closed to them," he said.

Attorneys for Halliburton did not return e-mail messages seekingcomment.

The nonprofit Erica P. John Fund, which has given millions ofdollars to the archdiocese and other organizations over the years,is among a number of revenue sources expected to be scrutinized bycreditors in the archdiocese's bankruptcy.

Victims and their attorneys question the timing of the name changein 2009, suggesting it may have been intended to obscure thefund's true purpose -- to financially support the archdiocese --and may have been part of a broader effort by the archdiocese toshield its resources from being used for sex abuse claims.

Last month, plaintiffs attorney Jeff Anderson questioned thetransfer of $130 million off the church's books since 2004 -- $75million in an investment fund and $55 million into a cemeterytrust. Church officials said the investment money belonged toparishes, which are separately incorporated from the archdiocese,and that the cemetery funds had always been restricted to thatpurpose.

The John Fund referred all questions to its attorneys.Mr. Goldfarb said the name was changed to honor its founder, whoremains on the three-member board of directors, along with herdaughter Paula John and Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki.

Archdiocese spokesman Jerry Topczewski said the John Fund, as aprivate foundation, cannot be tapped to pay sex church abusesettlements and that its grants obtained by the archdiocese arerestricted to specific uses.

Used for hush money

Proceeds from the fund -- more specifically, from the sale of aproperty it donated -- were used to pay $450,000 in hush money in1998 to a man who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by then-Archbishop Rembert Weakland when he was a seminary student yearsearlier. Archbishop Weakland, who abruptly retired after thepayment became public in 2002, has maintained that therelationship was consensual.

Mr. Topczewski said the building was donated before Erica Johndictated that no family funds could be used to pay sex-abusesettlements. And federal authorities investigated the allocationbut found no wrongdoing by the archdiocese because the money hadnot been diverted from a specific purpose.

The fund also gave $1.5 million in 1997 to endow chairs inArchbishop Weakland's name in universities in Rome.

The Erica P. John Fund has contributed about $600,000 a year tothe Archdiocese of Milwaukee in recent years, down from about$1 million annually in the past, according to Mr. Topczewski.

Erica John established the Archdiocese of Milwaukee SupportingFund in 1992 with $70 million from the former DeRance Foundation,once the world's largest Catholic charity, which had been foundedby her late ex-husband, Miller Brewing heir Harry John.

Mr. Golfarb declined to comment on the size of the fund or itsassets. But a 2002 Journal Sentinel story said it had contributedmore than $52 million in grants in the previous decade.

Donald Woodward, on behalf of other employees, filed a lawsuitMarch 1 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Doctor R. Crantsand Homeland Security Company LLC.

According to the complaint, Woodward worked for Homeland SecurityCompany in 2008. In October of that year, Woodward says he -- andperhaps hundreds of other coworkers -- were promised to be paid abonus of $2 per qualifying hour. However, Woodward claims thatmoney was never paid, despite repeated requests.

The class accuses the Tennessee-based company of breach ofcontract, fraud and violations of Illinois' Wage Payment andCollection Act. They ask for more than $200,000 in damages,including court costs.

Attorney Jeffrey A.J. Millar of St. Charles, Mo. is representingWoodward.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case No. 11-L-0106

HYATT VACATION: Judge Refuses to Move Class Action to Florida-------------------------------------------------------------Westlaw Journals reports that a California federal judge hasdeclined to transfer to Florida a wage-and-hour class actionagainst two Hyatt companies, finding that the parties' extensivecontacts with the state outweigh other factors concerning where tolitigate the claims.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District ofCalifornia said Jeanne Shultz's proposed class action againstHyatt Vacation Marketing Corp. and Hyatt Vacation Ownership Inc.should be addressed in her court as provided for under 28 U.S.C.Sec. 1404(a), even though the case could have been brought in theMiddle District of Florida.

Although courts generally defer to a plaintiff's choice of forum,the fact that the case is a class action reduces the significanceof that choice, the judge noted.

However, she declined to transfer the case because most of theconsiderations either were neutral or weighed against transfer.

According to the opinion, Ms. Shultz worked for Hyatt as a salesexecutive in Carmel, Calif., from 2005 to 2010. She says therewere times when she received no compensation because she and othersales executives were designated as "commissions only."

Although Hyatt at times paid them a "recoverable draw," thisresulted in her receiving even less than minimum wage, Shultzsays.

A recoverable draw is pay a company recovers regardless of theemployment status of the person who received it. In this case,the draws were deducted from Shultz's future commissions,according to the opinion.

Shultz claims the Hyatt defendants failed to pay her and othersminimum wage and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor StandardsAct, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, and the California Labor Code. She alsosays the company did not provide meal and rest periods or accuratewage statements.

The suit proposes a nationwide class and a California class. TheCalifornia class is composed of about 40 people.

Hyatt moved to transfer the case to the Middle District ofFlorida, where the defendants' headquarters are located. Itclaims a larger number of class members live in Florida ratherthan California, although not all of them live within the MiddleDistrict.

* Familiarity with governing law. Since both districts arefamiliar with federal law, this factor weighed only slightlyagainst transfer.

* Parties' contacts with the forum. Both Hyatt and Shultzhave substantial contacts with the Northern District ofCalifornia. Although Hyatt has more contacts with the MiddleDistrict of Florida than with California, Shultz has no contactswith the Florida venue. Therefore, this factor weighed againsttransfer.

* Contacts relating to cause of action in chosen forum.Because Shultz worked in Carmel, and Hyatt payroll records arelocated there, both parties have substantial contacts to NorthernCalifornia. Hyatt's human resources centralizes its records inits Florida headquarters, a factor that was neutral with respectto transfer.

* Costs of litigation. Although Hyatt argued it would bearthe greater expense if the case were not transferred, litigationexpenses should be a neutral factor in the transfer analysis.

* Convenience of witnesses. Because the number and locationof the proposed class members were uncertain at the time the judgeconsidered the transfer motion, the issue did not weigh in favorof either side at this stage in the case.

* Access to sources of proof. This factor weighed onlyslightly in favor of transfer given Hyatt's argument that"documents pertaining to the calculation and processing ofcommissions, payroll and real estate sales" would have to beshipped across the country for discovery. The judge suggestedthat Hyatt make "burdensome" documents available where they arestored.

* Public policy of forum state. This factor was neutralbecause each proposed venue has an interest in the case.

After weighing all the factors under Jones, Judge Koh found thattransfer was "not in the interests of justice or convenience."

MANULIFE FIN'L: Judge Approves Funding for Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Drew Hasselback, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports thatplaintiff lawyers have reason to smile thanks to Judge GeorgeStrathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's recent approvalof a deal in which an Irish investor will help finance a proposedsecurities class action against Manulife Financial Corp.

Claims Funding International PLC has agreed to indemnify theplaintiffs against their exposure to defendants' costs if theylose the suit. The Irish company will also contribute $50,000toward the plaintiffs' costs. In return, CFI can collect 7% ofany recovery, net of fees and disbursements to counsel. Thecommission is capped at $5-million if the recovery occurs prior tothe filing of a pretrial conference brief, rising to $10-millionthereafter.

Charles Wright of Siskinds LLP, who represents the plaintiffs,says the case is the first instance in Canada of this type ofthird-party class-action funding.

The defendants challenged the arrangement as "champertous" andunlawful under an 1897 Ontario statute, An Act RespectingChamperty, which states: "Champertors be they that move pleas andsuits, or cause to be moved, either by their own procurement, orby others, and sue them at their proper costs, for to have part ofthe land in variance, or part of the gains."

Judge Strathy writes that one of the purposes of class actions isto make it possible for a group of people to pool their resourcesto advance claims that would otherwise be too expensive to pursueon an individual basis. Since Ontario law requires losers to paycosts, no person in their right mind would accept the role ofrepresentative plaintiff if it meant losing everything after aloss at trial.

There is no evidence that CFI stirred up, incited or provoked thelitigation within the meaning of the Champerty Act, the Judgewrites. Rather, he described it as a fair reflection of risk andreward that is beneficial to the administration of justice: "Thefunding agreement helps to promote one of the important goals ofthe [Class Proceedings Act] -- providing access to justice. Thatgoal would be illusory if access to justice were deterred by theprospect of a crushing costs award to be borne by therepresentative plaintiff or counsel."

Judge Strathy's approval is subject to conditions. CFI needs toprove that it has assets available in Canada to satisfy any costsaward should the plaintiffs lose. And guidelines need to be putin place to ensure CFI keeps mum about any sensitive informationit receives about the case, such as proposals to settle.

Otherwise, let the funding games begin.

MEDIFAST INC: Gardy & Notis Files Class Action in Maryland----------------------------------------------------------Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf ofall purchasers of shares of common stock of Medifast, Inc. duringa class period of March 4, 2010 through March 10, 2011.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiffand a class of all other individual and institutional investorswho purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Medifast commonstock during the class period. The defendants in the case areMedifast, Inc., Michael S. Mcdevitt, Brendan N. Connors, BradleyT. Macdonald and Margaret E. Macdonald-Sheetz.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a seriesof materially false and misleading statements and/or failed todisclose that Medifast's financial results were materially falseand misleading at all relevant times. On March 11, 2011, theCompany announced that it would delay the release of its AnnualReport and requires additional time to complete its year-endfinancial statements due to the need to review past expenses inprior periods. The Company's announcement came at the heels ofrecent disclosures that the Company had dismissed its long-timeauditor after a finding of errors in its 2006, 2007 and 2008financial statements and restating its 2009 Annual Report. Onthis news, Medifast shares declined $5.27 per share, or more than24%, to close at $16.63 per share.

If you purchased shares of Medifast common stock between March 4,2010 through March 10, 2011, you may, no later May 17, 2011,request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for theclass. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts onbehalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Youmust meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy ofthe complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff'scounsel:

PNC BANK: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Banking Law Violations---------------------------------------------------------------The law firms Webster Book, LLP and Levetown & Jenkins, LLP havefiled a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federalbanking law by PNC Bank, N.A., as successor to National City Bank.The case can be found as case number 1:10-cv-01090-AJT in theEastern District US district Court, Alexandria, Virginia. Thelawsuit arises from allegations that PNC Bank employed anarbitrary and blanket prohibition against subrogating secondmortgages to new or modified senior mortgages secured by non-PNCliens. The complaint states claims for violations of the BankHolding Company Act's anti-tying provisions and seekscompensatory, statutory, and treble damages on behalf of PNCBank's customers who were precluded from refinancing their firstmortgages except on PNC Bank's terms.

Levetown & Jenkins, LLP wishes to discuss this case with anyhomeowner in any state who had or has a National City secondmortgage or HELOC who tried to refinance a first mortgage withanother lender and was prevented from doing so by National City atany time between Feb. 18, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2009. Anyone with aNational City second trust is encouraged to communicate with thetheir contact information and mortgage information to the law firmby completing the homeowner registration onhttps://www.bankclassactions.com/ Webster Book, LLP is located inAlexandria, Virginia. Levetown & Jenkins, LLP has offices inWashington, D.C. and Newport Beach, California.

http://www.BankClassActions.com/is a data aggregation and research platform owned by BankClassActions.com, Inc. Theplatform is designed to allow homeowners who may have been thevictims of predatory lending practices, foreclosure fraud andother violations of state and federal lending practices to findinformation about cases and Class Action firms who are fightingfor homeowner rights in courtrooms throughout the country. TheBCA platform allows homeowners to create an exhaustive profile ofthe underwriting and servicing of their mortgage and to push thedata securely at their discretion to Law Firms who areinvestigating or suing their lenders. The BCA platform allowsClass Action Law Firms to profile their cases and to receiveprofiles from potential class participants.

SHENGDATECH INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action---------------------------------------------------------Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit againstShengdaTech, Inc. that alleges violations of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of ShengdaTech commonstock during the period March 15, 2010 through March 15, 2011,inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York. A copy of the complaint may beobtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,Defendants made materially false and misleading statements toinvestors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose that: (1) theCompany had material deficiencies in its internal controls overits financial reporting, (2) ShengdaTech's financial statementswere materially false and misleading and not presented inaccordance with GAAP, and (3) Defendants had no reasonable basisfor their positive statements about ShengdaTech's business andfinancial results.

The Complaint further alleges that on March 15, 2011, ShengdaTechshocked investors when it announced that it "had appointed aspecial committee of the Board of Directors to investigatepotentially serious discrepancies and unexplained issues relatingto the Company and its subsidiaries' financial records identifiedby the Company's auditors in the course of their audit of theconsolidated financial statements for the fiscal year endedDec. 31, 2010." As a result, trading in ShengdaTech stock haltedbefore the markets opened on March 15, 2011, and the stock has nottraded since.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the courtno later than May 17, 2011 to serve as a lead plaintiff for theClass. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order toshare in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and isrepresented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Our firm, with officesin New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey,has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class actionsand actions involving financial fraud. For more information aboutKaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy of the complaintfiled in this action, you may visit our Web site athttp://www.kaplanfox.com/

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, yourrights, or your interests, please contact:

UNITED STATES: IIM Holders Question Legal Fees in Cobell Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Native American Times reports that some Individual Indian Moneyaccount holders are wondering why their attorneys may receive moremoney than them from the $3.4 billion settlement in the Cobell v.Salazar class action lawsuit.

"I don't begrudge anybody wanting monetary payment," KarenWhitefox, Kiowa, said, although she questions why Ms. Cobelldidn't ask for financial support from Indian people "before shethrew her shawl down on the ground on behalf of Native Americansacross the nation."

The Cobell suit began in June 1996 after decades of land, trustfund and trust asset mismanagement by the federal government.Preliminary approval was granted for the settlement on Dec. 21,2010 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, andearlier this year two petitions were filed requesting monetaryawards for Cobell and the other three Class Representatives, andfor the Class Counsel.

The Class Representatives are asking for incentive awards andexpense reimbursements for their efforts in the case. Ms. Cobellrequests $2 million, James Louise Larose requests $200 thousand,and both Thomas Maulson and Penny Cleghorn request $150 thousandeach. This is in addition to $10.5 million in expensereimbursement and settlement money they are entitled to as ClassMembers. All awards, costs and expenses total $13,056,274.59 forthe Class Representatives and would be given from the settlementamount allocated for all Class Members.

Keith Harper, of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, said Cobell,Blackfeet, spent 15 years of her time, effort and resources on theclass action, including using her MacArthur Genius Award money topay for experts on the case. In order to help fund thelitigation, Ms. Cobell acquired reimbursable grants, madecontracts with experts, and received assistance from organizationswhich must now be paid. As of press time, Ms. Cobell did notreturn phone messages.

The Class Counsel is requesting $223 million, which is 14.75% ofthe 1.5 million dollars to be dispersed to Class Members. Theother $1.9 million from the $3.4 billion settlement is earmarkedfor land consolidation efforts, and $16 million for the IndianEducation Scholarship Fund. The Land consolidation endeavor givesClass Members the choice to sell their fractionalized land,although they are not required to do so. The scholarship fundswill be administered by the American Indian College Fund and theAmerican Indian Graduate Center.

These fees requested by Class Counsel have some IIM accountholders asking if the attorneys are asking for double theirexpenses.

"The short answer is no," Mr. Harper, said during a March 14settlement information meeting at the Wichita Tribe's HousingAuthority Iscani Community building in Anadarko.

Mr. Harper, a lead attorney for Ms. Cobell, said the amountrequested by the attorneys is not double the expenses. He quotedpartnering attorney Dennis Gingold and said they are only askingfor what their expenses were and at the end of the day it's up tothe courts to decide what they will get paid.

"To get lawyers who are going to be dedicated without compensationfor that many years; to do this kind of case and have it besuccessful as it is, it requires they be compensated fairly at theend," Mr. Harper, Cherokee, said. "This is an issue of fairness,but it's also an issue of, if you get the attorneys' fee awardwell below what is called for in the marketplace, then how areindividual Indians going to get competent counsel next time aroundto take their case?"

Mr. Harper said the 14.75 percent request is fair and Congressknew the counsel's fees would be coming out of the settlementfund. He recalled Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Washington), who publiclycriticized the attorney fees, saying on the House floor that "itwould be up to the judge and there's no cap."

"So now there's sort of this notion that 'oh, there was this capand it's wrong.' It's not true, and so it's another time whenthey're playing fast and loose with facts," Mr. Harper said.

In the government's response to the fees requested by theattorneys, the brief states, "In seeking this Court's preliminaryapproval of the settlement, plaintiffs informed the Court that theFee Agreement provides that they 'shall not assert that ClassCounsel be paid more than $99,900,000.00,' and 'counsel now arguethat their service to those clients merits a payment of more thantwice that amount -- further depleting the funds available forpayments to Class Members by more than $120 million.'"

The government response also states the plaintiffs petitioned forand "obtained an award of over $7 million in fees and expenses fortheir work, which the government promptly paid. They alsoreceived over $750,000 in additional fees and expenses relating todiscovery disputes."

Harper, along with two other Cobell attorneys, Rob Harmala andAlex Pearl, are meeting with class members in 50 differentreservations and communities throughout Indian Country. Anadarkowas the first stop in a handful of meetings held in Oklahoma wherethe attorneys fielded questions about the settlement and theirlegal fees.

Marcianna R. Jacobs, Cheyenne, questions the total amount of thesettlement, incentive payments and attorney fees. During theAnadarko meeting she handed out copies of a news article to theestimated 50 attendees concerning the amount of money requested bythe attorneys. She said account holders need to be paid what isactually owed to them.

"The majority of money you're asking for in this lawsuit is whatis owed to account holders," Ms. Jacobs said. "To me, I'm ashamedat this Cobell case . . . I hope you can live with yourself . . .We don't need another handout. I look at you just . . . to beanother Indian giver."

Ms. Jacob's husband, Eddie, questioned how many account holderstestified during the court proceedings, and said he personallysubmitted his account records to Harper but never received aresponse.

"My problem is that we have almost a hundred years they're notlooking at . . . how do we let government say they didn't commitwrong doing?" Eddie Jacobs, Creek, asked.

Mr. Harper said they litigated on the issue of deceasedbeneficiaries and recovering all the missing funds but lost.

"I wish we had won that issue . . . I wish the decision wentdifferent . . . but we did not prevail . . . this is the reality,there are so many documents lost by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. . . they cannot do an accounting," he said, also mentioning thatthe $3.4 billion settlement does not compensate for the wrong doneby the federal government, but the amount is what was attainable.

The beneficiaries of the settlement fall into two groups. Onegroup is the Historical Accounting Class and the other is theTrust Administration Class. There are approximately 360,000members in the Historical Accounting Class. An accurate number ofpeople in the Trust Administration Class will be known oncemembers decide if they are going to participate or opt out of theclass, and if all class members can be located.

Pearl, Chickasaw, said the government cannot achieve a historicalaccounting so members of the Historical Accounting class willreceive a set amount of $1000 in November 2011 and they cannot optout of this class. Members of the Trust Administration Class willreceive payment based on the sum of the ten highest years ofrevenue in their account. It's estimated this payment may be sentin summer 2012. Any money received under this settlement is taxfree and cannot be used to determine qualifications for socialservices.

Mr. Harper said if members do not agree with the amount they willbe given in the Trust Administration Class they can opt out ofthat class and pursue their own litigation.

Mr. Harmala said nobody can force Class Members to participate,but advised members to think through the cost, benefits and abouthaving to find a lawyer to represent them. He said they thinkthey have a fair settlement, and mentioned the federal governmentrealizes every dollar in the settlement took funds away from non-Indian programs.

Jane Nightwalker, Arapaho, said she does not agree with thepayment amounts to be given in the settlement, and felt theattorneys were trying to persuade people to accept the settlementagreement. She said she doesn't think anybody listened to herquestions or that all the beneficiaries were listened to.

"The way you talk, you don't give me any hope . . . I still don'tfeel this is justified . . . just compensation will never bereached . . . but right now if I wanted to go to court, I have nomoney," Ms. Nightwalker said, adding that members want justice,fairness and honesty.

Yet, not all attendees questioned the amount to be received. KathyWare-Perosi, Kiowa, expressed her appreciation for the settlementand thanked the attorneys for their work.

"We finally have taken a case all the way to the finish line andwe have won, and people are happy about that," Mr. Harper said."We got the largest settlement in the history of the UnitedStates."

Class members who wish to speak to the court about the settlementduring the June 20 fairness hearing in Washington, D.C. must letthe court know by April 20. For more information visithttp://www.indiantrust.com/

* Quebec Province to Attract More Class Action Plaintiffs---------------------------------------------------------The Montreal Gazette reports that there was a time when theprovince of Quebec was generally regarded as Canada's class-actionhaven, the jurisdiction in which plaintiffs' representatives foundit easiest to have their lawsuits certified.

But if statistics count, it may well be that British Columbia nowdeserves the title. So much so that in 2008, the Quebec Court ofAppeal summarily threw out a proposed price-fixing class actionbased on a Toyota "Access Program" pricing mechanism. Bycontrast, the B.C. Court of Appeal earlier this month overturned aB.C. Supreme Court denial of certification in a class action basedon the same program.

A review of court records in British Columbia shows that theprovince's Court of Appeal has heard 47 appeals in the last fiveyears in which certification was in issue. In 39 of these cases,the B.C. Supreme Court had granted certification and the Court ofAppeal upheld the decision. In six cases, the Court of Appealupheld denials of certification. The Court of Appeal reversed aB.C. Supreme Court decision to certify a class in only two cases.

The upshot is that the Court of Appeal gave its seal of approvalto 39 of the 47 cases that came before it where certification wasat issue -- an outstanding plaintiff's success rate of 83%.

Indeed, it's been four years since the Court of Appeal lastreversed a lower court's certification.

Most recently, the court has said that for the purposes ofcertification plaintiffs need only demonstrate that a methodologyto prove damages might be available; older case law had suggestedthat certification would occur only if the plaintiffs convincedthe court that such a methodology already is in fact available.

To the lay reader, the distinction between "might" and "is" willseem like an insignificant nuance. But the result has a hugeimpact on class actions.

"Basically, the Court of Appeal is saying that certification isnot a time to determine what is admittedly a complex question andthat the matter should go to trial where conclusions can bereached based on a full evidentiary record," says James Sullivanof Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP's Vancouver office. The practicalconsequences are two-fold.

"Firstly, more cases will be going to trial and that's going tocreate a problem with judicial resources because these are longand complicated lawsuits," Mr. Sullivan says.

"And secondly, there are going to be more nominal settlementswhere plaintiffs' lawyers will receive the bulk of the benefitbecause settling is less costly for defendants than going totrial."

In Quebec, Canada's oldest class action jurisdiction with enablinglegislation enacted over 30 years ago, things have been a littletougher for plaintiffs lately. Indeed, since 2004, when judgeshearing certification motions were also required to try the casesthey certified, Quebec's reputation as a class action haven withliberal certification requirements has taken a steady beating.

"Sometimes I think that defendants are actually better off inQuebec now, because judges have had to live with what theyauthorize," says Sylvie Rodrigue of Ogilvy Renault LLP's montrealand Toronto offices.

"They're seeing that a case with one or two common issues canpotentially give rise to 20,000 mini-trials. The judges won'tadmit it, but the reality is that if you're the one who will haveto manage the monster, you're going to think about itsmanageability when you're deciding whether to create it."

Ms. Rodrigue may well be right: Even though manageability isn't aformal requirement for certification in Quebec, manageabilityconsiderations are creeping into judges' reasons.

"That's precisely what happened in the Paxil litigation, the firstpharma case that the Quebec courts refused to certify," Ms.Rodrigue says.

Ms. Rodrigue maintains, however, that British Columbia may not beany more difficult for defendants than Ontario.

"Just like in B.C., Ontario certification judges are throwing theproblems into other judges' courts," she says.

"You have a pretty sophisticated plaintiffs' bar in B.C. andOntario," Mr. Strosberg says. "We're rejecting 99% of the casesproposed to us, so what the statistics really reflect is thatplaintiffs' counsel are doing their job right and they're doing itup front."

Mr. Strosberg also points out that B.C.'s popularity as a classaction venue is limited because it is an "opt-in" jurisdiction,meaning that the classes created are only open to individuals fromother provinces or abroad if they specifically choose to join theclass.

There are, however, some anecdotal rumblings that B.C. will beamending its legislation to become an "opt-out" jurisdiction,which envisages extra-provincial class members as bound by thelawsuit unless they specifically choose not to be so bound.

If that happens, B.C.'s attractiveness to plaintiffs will growexponentially.

"If you consider the current plaintiffs' success rate in B.C. inthe context of an opt-in jurisdiction that unlike other Canadianjurisdictions does not penalize unsuccessful plaintiffs with thethreat of costs against them, you do have the makings of a class-action mecca," Mr. Strosberg says.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.